Ex Parte Purcell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13236473 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/236,473 09/19/2011
102324 7590 06/30/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy John PURCELL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NVDA/SC-11-0090-US 1 3999
EXAMINER
SUN, CHARLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
kcruz@artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com
mmccauley@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY JOHN PURCELL, LACKY V. SHAH, and
JEROME F. DULUK JR.
Appeal2015-001209
Application 13/236,473
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The invention is directed to "dynamically scheduling and managing
compute tasks with different execution priority levels" in which compute
tasks are selected from an active task table for execution. Abstract.
Appeal2015-001209
Application 13/236,473
Representative Claims (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method of scheduling compute tasks for execution, the
method comprising:
selecting a first compute task from a head of a linked list
for a group of compute tasks at a first priority level of multiple
priority levels;
identifying a lowest priority level of active compute tasks
that are scheduled for execution and stored in a task table;
comparing the first priority level with the lowest priority
level;
determining that the first priority level is higher than the
lowest priority level; and
replacing a second compute task having a priority at the
lowest priority level that is stored in the task table with the first
compute task.
Rejections on Appeal1
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Plondke (US 2010/0242041 Al; September 23,
2010) in view of Garg (US 2008/0320259 Al; December 25, 2008). Final
Rejection 6.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Plondke and Garg, and further in view of
Schimmel (US 6,601,120 Bl; July 29, 2003). Final Rejection 12.
1 The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn. Answer 3.
2
Appeal2015-001209
Application 13/236,473
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Plondke and Garg, and further in view of Liu (US
2007/0281623 Al; December 6, 2007). Final Rejection 15.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Plondke, Garg, and Liu, and further in view of Kroesche
(US 2008/0270824 Al; October 30, 2008). Final Rejection 16.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Plondke and Garg, and further in view of Qin (US
2007/0169125 Al; July 19, 2007). Final Rejection 18.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deng (US 2007/0143761 Al; June 21, 2007), and further
in view of Garg and Plondke. Final Rejection 19.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed November 5, 2013), the Appeal Brief
(filed May 29, 2014), the Examiner's Answer (mailed August 7, 2014), and
the Reply Brief (filed October 7, 2014 ). We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because none of the cited references teaches or suggests "selecting a first
compute task from a head of a linked list for a group of compute tasks at a
first priority level of multiple priority levels." Appeal Brief 11. Particularly,
Appellants contend "there is no organization of tasks into groups having
different priority levels in Plondke" because "Plondke groups tasks into an
'executing' group and a 'ready' (i.e., pending) group." Appeal Brief 12.
3
Appeal2015-001209
Application 13/236,473
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
that Appellants' Specification recites that a queue metadata "group is a set of
compute tasks with the same scheduling priority." Answer 5; see also
Specification i-f 38. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that "[a] group
(under the broadest reasonable interpretation) can thus be construed as a set
of compute tasks with the same scheduling priority," and Plondke Figure 2
thus discloses five priority groups: {"O", "2", "4", "6", and "8"}. Answer 5-
6. In response, Appellants argue that "a linked list of a group of tasks in
which the group is characterized by each task in the group having the same
priority level, as suggested by the Examiner, would immediately break
Plondke 's process" because such a grouping would alter Plondke's "mixture
of task priority levels." Reply Brief 7. This argument is unpersuasive as the
grouping of Plondke' s "ready task list" suggested by the Examiner would
not alter any priority of the actual tasks in the list. 2
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
1, and independent claims 10 and 19 commensurate in scope, and claims 2-
9, 11-18, and 20 that depend therefrom and not separately argued. See
Appeal Brief 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
2 We additionally note the claim does not specify how the list is "linked,"
and that Appellants' argument is contradicted by Plondke' s Figures 6 and 7,
which clearly illustrate a single group of priority level "4" tasks in the ready
task list, in which a priority level "8" task from the executing task list is
replaced by a priority level "4" task selected from the group in the ready task
list. See also i-f 39-40.
4
Appeal2015-001209
Application 13/236,473
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5